In regards to using a mean points system, I based the relegation system on football leagues - City might have won last year but if they were to finish bottom three this year, they'd go down. It will be fairer in the long run when everyone has points on the board IMO, because it won't be as difficult to retain a place if you're promoted

Yes but we're looking for the best drafters over a series of seasons. The best way to do that is not relegate someone for having one bad draft.

Who do we rate as a better drafter, someone who comes 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, last, or someone who avoids relegation by one point each time?

"If that Swann lad is the future of spin bowling in this country, then we're ****ed." - Nasser Hussain, 1997.

Admittedly, I do have a vested interest here - but to use a parallel - the Premier League Soccer doesn't use a mean to decide who gets relegated at the end of a season. It's whoever has the least points.

Perhaps we could have an immunity zone where the top x amount of players in the championship are safe?

Should someone come first that many times though (or even place, just to make it more realistic) then they'd have five titles and the most points scored overall by far, so they'd still be ranked as the best

Perhaps we could have an immunity zone where the top x amount of players in the championship are safe?

Should someone come first that many times though (or even place, just to make it more realistic) then they'd have five titles and the most points scored overall by far, so they'd still be ranked as the best

'Immunity Zone'? That's going to get very messy. Besides living on the edge is fun. Keeps you sharp.

Mean or Premier League relegation style.

To be honest, I don't mind if I go to the Reserves as long as I still have the fun of selecting teams.

Should someone come first that many times though (or even place, just to make it more realistic) then they'd have five titles and the most points scored overall by far, so they'd still be ranked as the best

It's not just about that though. We want to find the best drafters and have fun whilst doing it. So particularly those that deserve to be in the next draft, are - not just to prove themselves, but to have fun as well.

I know you're trying hard not to look biased, as you're one of the people on 3/4 votes atm, but it really is the best way. Lots of good performances should definitely be rewarded.

Basic rules
1. The draft follows the basic turn-by-turn format which I will use a random list generator to determine the order for.
2. Players have 12 hours to take their picks and may choose as soon as possible if they are timed out.
3. Each player selects and submits their own clause. Examples below
4. Each clause needs to have 12 different players at the very least who are available to choose from.
5. For every selection, the player needs to nominate which clause they are ‘using’, and from then on they are not allowed to use it again.
6. This means we will have 12 player-submitted themed picks, so it should be a chaotic and fun draft.
7. I will moderate the clauses to make sure they’re not stupid, too difficult, too abstract etc.
8. Everyone needs to use each clause once.
9. No Bradman.

Clause examples
Select a player that was bowled by Glenn McGrath in tests
Select a player that debuted before 1900
Select a player with a last name starting with W
Select a player from Bangladesh or Zimbabwe
Select a player that made a pair in tests
Select a player who had a brother who also played test cricket

There are so many ideas! I encourage everyone involved to be inventive, but naturally it will be better if a few clauses are relatively simple.

At the end of the draft? I don't see the advantage. At least if you nominate your clause as you go along we can all cross check it for potential mistakes. That way there's no argument right at the end when we dispute whether 'Don Bradman's wife wore pink dresses on Sunday'.